Michael Dorosh
Posts: 377
Joined: 3/2/2003
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Zemke_4
Due to the high angle fire of mortars, that would make sense, and seeing that few direct fire weapons could pentrate a Tiger, if I would in his shoes, I would be worried about that also. But the chance of a hit on a stationary tank, much less a hit on the engine compartment, would be very small. I used to be a mortar Platoon Leader 20+ years ago in the 80s, and I remember out on the range we had a bet with the Forward Observers (FOs), that we could hit this old tank with a direct hit. It took us a lot of rounds from one gun, not because we had to adjust the gun data, but because mortars are not a point attack weapon, they are an area attack weapon, and with the same data on the gun, we got really close several times, hitting behind it, in front of it, to the sides, finally the FOs called back they has seen "flash", indicating a metal on metal strike, a direct hit. So yes if can be done, with enough rounds, and some luck, to hit a stationary tank, but it took us 10-20 rounds to do it. When I talk about data on the guns, we take into account, not only the obvious factors like range, but air density, air temperature, wind, tube temperature, all these variables are taken into account to get the most accurate fire possible and if the FO has the range correct, you will hit +/- 50 meters with one adjustment, and that is good enough in the indirect fire world, because once again, mortars and artillery are area weapons designed to kill infantry. Shell fragments may cause minor damage to a tank, but will not knock it out, maybe damage it. Today we can kill a tank with one round, the Excalibur round allows us to do a precision hit, because it is GPS guided, so unless they had GPS in WW II, I stick by hitting a tank with mortars or any other indirect fire weapon is NOT likely, possible, but not likely.
Bottom line, I think 40% of FNGs tanks getting knocked out in one barrage by 120mm mortars is way too high, and unrealistic.
You don't think the ammunition allotment for a Soviet mortar battery in action amounted to "10 or 20 rounds"? I'd suggest it was a lot higher than that under normal conditions by the middle of the war. Add the number of tubes per km of front in during some of the later barrages, and you're increasing the odds dramatically. Not to mention German tanks were pretty rare things, wargames notwithstanding. Armoured divisions amounted to something like 10% of German formations as a whole; a forward observer getting a mass of tanks in his binoculars was probably not shy about calling down as much fire, in as high a quantity, as possible.
quote:
Ron
I agree with Zemke_4, the chances of actually hitting a point target with artillery or mortars should be fairly low, the chances of 'knocking it out' even lower still as it would have to hit the right place. What kind of damage modelling will be portrayed with AFVs?
Not arguing against this but in the enclosed confines of a "typical" PzC scenario, you still have to have consequences for blundering through an artillery barrage with AFVs. Otherwise, what would stop a player from knowingly driving through one with his tanks/APCs, if he knows he is impervious to them? At the end of the day, it is still a game.
< Message edited by Michael Dorosh -- 9/15/2010 1:41:06 PM >
_____________________________
The Tactical Wargamer
|
Printable Version
Absurdly accurate first turn Russian Artillery - 
New Messages
No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages
Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages
Locked w/o New Messages
Post New Thread